Clinton Zoned Out

Bill Clinton, apparently under some form of mind control or partial sedation.


[A BLAST FROM THE PAST FOR YOUR ENLIGHTENMENT. July 13, 2007 The Clintons have always been both more and less than they seemed.]


Posted by thomaspainescorner

By Peter Chamberlin


Bill Clinton seems to get blamed by this Neocon administration for many things, but most of all for “losing bin Laden.” The ugly truth is that, in this case, they are probably right. Clinton’s team probably had good information on Osama’s whereabouts most of the time, since they were playing on the same team for most of Clinton’s two terms. It is becoming clear from the accumulating evidence that Bill Clinton resurrected Ronald Reagan’s Afghan strategy of using Islamist guerillas as his own covert foreign policy in Europe and other intransigent hot spots that seemed to be immune to normal diplomacy. Clinton’s foolish toying with Islamist killers is probably the spark that ignited the international jihad against America.

Those of us who are diehard “Bush haters,” like to blame Bush senior for creating Al Qaida, when he abandoned Afghanistan. The problem is, even though Bush did abandon the Afghans, it fell to the next misled president to breathe life into Al Qaida. According to Gen. Hameed Gul (former head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence-ISI- during the war against the Soviets), when Vice President George H. W. Bush became president in 1989, he threatened to “clip ISI’s wings.” (Gul now serves as an adviser to Pakistan’s extremist religious political parties. He may also be the source of the Al Qaida rumors that it was the Israeli Mossad, not bin Laden, that carried-out the 9/11 attacks, as well as the idea of creating an Islamic Caliphate, beginning with Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republics.) After the withdrawal of the Soviets on February 15, 1989, Bush began to make good on that threat. According to author George Crile, in Charlie’s War, on September 30, 1991, the end of the fiscal year, the flow officially stopped (except for $200 million [matched by the Saudis] hidden within the defense authorizations bill for 1992). After the US abandoned Afghanistan, to attack Saddam Hussein, the ISI was left alone to manage the Afghan tribal bloodbath and civil war. Soon after the liberation of Kabul, their man, Hezb-i-Islami leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (long the main recipient of CIA weaponry) started the civil war, by firing rockets at Kabul. (The ISI later created the Taliban regime and installed them in power in 1996.)

In 1993, the stage had been set for Clinton to take over, after Bush had walked off the field. His common history with the radical Islamists began shortly after he took office, when he acceded to the demands of the Muslim governments, who were wanting to send aid to their brethren in Yugoslavia. Clinton began a covert operation with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, to send money and arms to Bosnia-Herzegovina. According to a lengthy Congressional report by the Republican Party Committee, published in 1997 (while the Republicans were pre-occupied with learning about the president’s sexual habits), the Clinton administration “helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base,” by recruiting and arming thousands of Mujahideen through the “Militant Islamic Network.” The report then went on to claim administration “…complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo.., involvement with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline… (and using Muslim “charity” groups who were) connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden…” [Washington Post, 9/22/96]

The result was an illegal Iran-Contra style operation which utilized Iranian militants and elements of Al Qaida in Albania some of which were under direct command of Al Qaida “number two” Ayman al-Zawahiri), to smuggle weapons and mujahedeen though Croatia into Bosnia. This secret program was later duplicated with the Kosovo Liberation Army, and again in nearby Macedonia, as well as in Chechnya. According to author and researcher Yossef Bodansky (director Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare), Clinton also used these Al Qaida offshoots against Egypt, after President Mubarak opposed Clinton’s use of force against Iraq in February 1998. Some of these Islamists, again led by Zawahiri, had tried to assassinate Mubarak in 1995. (Zawahiri had earlier gained notoriety as one of the conspirators, and spokesman, for the assassins of Anwar Sadat.) In Bosnia, the Islamists staged attacks upon fellow Muslims in order to elicit international sympathy and thus intervention. The outcomes of these actions effectively converted NATO into the Islamists’ air force, the Western press into their propaganda organs, and American troops into their proxy forces.

The Saudis provided most of the money for the covert program in Yugoslavia (just as they had matched all US funds to the original mujahedeen), the Iranians supplied the arms, and the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) brought the “Afghan-Arab” veterans to the fight. The ISI is widely known as a surrogate of the CIA, which had created them, as well as SAVAK, the Shah of Iran’s secret police. During the Afghan jihad, the CIA used the ISI to create the drug/arms pipeline that supplied the war effort and promoted the smuggling of heroin into Afghanistan, in order to turn the Soviet troops into heroin addicts. (Echoes of Iran-contra CIA drug-running charges.) After the fall of the Soviet puppet Najibullah in 1992, the veteran Arabs took their skills back to their homelands, where they began to spread the militant disease, sharing the technical skills that we had taught them, creating local cells of “the base.”

The ISI sent thousands of the remaining jihadis to Kashmir, to wage a new covert war against India, after the alarming series of nuclear tests which both countries had just conducted. ISI seeded thousands of their own paramilitary forces in with the mujahedeen, to lead the fight in the disputed territory. How can we possibly tell the Taliban and Al Qaida from the Pakistani undercover ISI agents? For that matter, is there even a difference? Who is to say if “Al Qaida” is not really just another Pakistani covert operation? Bin Laden himself never used the term before 1999. In 1998 he created the “International Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders.” According to former agents of the French secret service, “al Qaida” (”the base” in Arabic) was the name for a database of an early version of the Internet that had been created by Saudi Arabia, for families of the Afghan mujahedeen to use to communicate with their honored “freedom fighters.” Did Al Qaida originate as a generic name for the entire Islamic mujahedeen support network?

The ISI did not create “the base” (the mujahedeen network) by themselves; it was created by the Saudis under the supervision of the CIA master planners. Were the Pakistanis working with Al Qaida on 9/11? If not, then how were the terrorists able to coordinate their attacks with American war games? Who helped them to pre-wire and precisely time the secondary explosives in the buildings? Was the ISI still in the employ of the CIA in 2001? How could the ISI or Al Qaida have managed to “stand down” the protective fighter bubble, that should have prevented the later attacks, if there was no one on the inside to hobble those defenses?

There are far too many discrepancies in the “official versions” of these events, and in the war on terrorism as well, to allow the cover-ups to continue. President Bush has based the Iraq war and the war on terrorism on a series of cover-ups—a cover-up of the truth about the “Iraq threat” following an even bigger cover-up of the cycle of endless retribution with the Islamists over our shared secret history. Bush has followed the deadly path blazed by Clinton, seeking to revive his lost wars and to force his version of diplomacy upon a targeted Muslim population. Unlike Clinton, Bush is trying to fight multiple wars using the Sunni terrorist network (Al Qaida the base), to create multiple civil wars and to ignite a regional religious civil war. Bush is a lost man, multiplying his failures in hopes of ending up with something that resembles victory in the end product.

Bush has breathed new life into the American/Saudi/Pakistani Islamist network as the foundation for his covert war against Iran. He is using Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as bases of operation, from which to train and launch trained Sunni terrorists into Iran. What are the ramifications of bringing the ISI into the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts? Could the ISI be to blame for the sudden avalanche of “irrefutable proof” being offered of Iranian weapons in Sunni hands in Iraq and Afghanistan? That “proof” was the basis for yesterday’s Senate vote to accuse Iran of waging war against American forces. The events on the ground in Afghanistan and in Pakistan speak volumes about Pakistani veracity as our partner in the war on terror. Thanks to them, the Taliban may be on the verge of victory in both of those countries. Afghanistan and the tribal provinces of Western Pakistan could probably be cleansed of most Taliban by repeating the carpet-bombing campaign of 2001, but both countries would choose Islamist governments in democratic elections. A hostile Islamist government in Islamabad would have nuclear missiles with which to carry-out their retribution.

The next president has the awful task of unwinding this tangled mess. If he has any chance at all of accomplishing this task, it will not be by continuing the failed policies of Clinton and Bush. They took Reagan’s violent, though successful policy of working with Islamic extremists and tried to co-opt and use the Islamists for very un-Islamic tasks. Bush has exacerbated the repercussions of these manipulations by turning a struggle to bring a few thousand Al Qaida terrorists (whoever they really were) to justice into a “clash of civilizations” against all of Islam. This has proven to be a powerful Islamic recruiting device.

The next president will have to deal with empowered Islamists without being so quick to resort to bombs. He will have to try to reason with extremist Islamist governments. The next president will have to act reasonably, as well. This means that we cannot elect another extremist president ourselves, unless his extremism is in defense of the Constitution and the people it defends, which includes defending the “inalienable human rights” of all people. He must be a man who will defend America against those who call themselves “Americans,” while doing so many bad things to so many people.

Washington Wants Islamabad to “Own” Predator Attacks, Admit to Identical Goals

Islamabad urged to concede its ‘tacit approval’ of drones

The attacks would not have taken place if it were not for the tacit approval of Pakistan’s leadership, Senator Carl Levin said. —Reuters Photo

WASHINGTON: The drone attacks are creating new tensions between Pakistan and the United States as US lawmakers urge Islamabad to accept the responsibility for approving the strikes.

Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told a recent congressional hearing that the attacks would not have taken place if it were not for the tacit approval of Pakistan’s leadership.

A transcript released on Thursday quoted several US lawmakers as telling the Senate Homeland Security subcommittee that the US administration should urge Pakistan to accept the responsibility for their share in the attacks.

The United States relies heavily on unmanned aircraft to target militants but such strikes also cause an excessively high number of civilian casualties. Official Pakistani sources say that since 2006, the drones have killed only 14 militants and over 700 civilians.

But Senator Levin told the panel that the official Pakistani reaction had hamstrung Washington. ‘For them to look the other way or to give us the green light privately and then to attack us publicly leaves us, it seems to me, at a very severe disadvantage and loss with the Pakistani people,’ he said.

US Deputy Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Paul Jones told the panel that the US administration was developing a new strategy to reduce tensions stoked by drone strikes.

When Senator Daniel Akaka asked Jones to comment on the drone controversy, Jones said he could not discuss the issue in a public hearing.

But, he added, ‘a very important part of our strategy is strategic communications.’ He went on to say that in the PR sphere, ‘we’re making some progress.’

The United States plans to ‘increase quite significantly’ aid to Pakistan to help the government with its own communications strategy, Jones said. That includes distributing radios to Pakistanis in the tribal areas and helping the government of Pakistan with public service announcements.

Such programmes ‘will help people understand what the goals are of the Pakistani government and the international community, and how they are helping the country of Pakistan,’ he said.

Allowing the drone attacks

Allowing the drone attacks

Dr Masooda Bano

The US is continuing to launch drone attacks in the tribal belt of Pakistan. The increased frequency of these attacks confirms that they have all along taken place with the consent of the Pakistani government, as well as the army. In the last five days alone two drone attacks have resulted in more than thirty casualties. These are in addition to the casualties resulting from the aerial operations carried out by the Pakistani forces. And finally there was the helicopter crash, which was a major loss for the Pakistani forces. There is relative quiet on the legitimacy of these drone attacks. Like most other activities carried out by government officials in Pakistan, which are officially illegal, the US drones attacks now create little resistance within the Pakistani public because in some way everyone is becoming used to them. It is no longer an exceptional event; it is in fact a matter of daily routine. Why Pakistan should stand at a point where violation of its sovereignty by another nation should be so easily accepted by its civilian and military elite is however a question that requires serious thinking.

The question is, why has the Zardari government and the military given the US forces rights to carry out of these drone attacks within Pakistani territory? Is the decision based on some strategic calculation of Pakistan’s security interests or is the answer the same as was admitted in General Musharraf’s memoirs–i.e., that the Pakistani government was paid handsomely for providing the US a free hand in fighting its “war on terror” in Pakistan, be it in the form of handing over Pakistanis to the US agencies without protecting their basic right to provide them a trial within Pakistan or leaving the Pakistani boundaries undefended against US military attacks. The quite acceptance of these drone attacks, above all, leads to the uncomfortable realisation that the grand plan for fighting the militant resistance in Pakistan is actually still scripted by the US. The Pakistani government or the military is failing to develop or dictate the strategy to deal with the growing militancy in the area.

This in turn raises the question as to how the government had decided that this borrowed strategy will deliver in terms of curtailing militancy in Pakistan. The US has failed to control Afghanistan despite being there for over seven years now. The NATO forces are tired, can’t find a way forward, and are desperate to minimise their losses. How can the Pakistani government assume that allowing the US forces to expand the same strategy, which has failed to secure Afghanistan, will deliver in Pakistan? If the Pakistani government was to take the plea that it is handing over the responsibility of protecting its borders to the US while it focuses on making a serious investment in improving the development conditions in Pakistan, one could still find a rationale for giving up one’s territorial sovereignty.

However, when the government continues to drain the national wealth in the supporting a large army and has its energy primarily focused on planning military interventions within its own country then the question is that what good is this investment if it is deviating energies from serious planning on long-term educational and development needs of the public and at the same time is not being able to protect the country’s territorial boundaries. There has to be some limits set to what rights foreign powers can be allowed within a country’s territorial boundaries. It might be desirable to rely on government-issued statements and assume that the victims of drone attacks were terrorists. How can such claims we so easily trusted when the record of the personal morality of the officials making these claims is as weak as is visible in the case of Pakistani civilian and military elite.

What is most ironic is to recognise that such critical decisions about future of Pakistan and lives of Pakistanis are taken by military generals and civilian figures that are so petty in their daily dealings. Mr Shaukat Aziz supposedly had earned enough as a senior official at City Bank to not ideally need to have to walk away with all the gifts that he was given in his official capacity and should have been deposited in the state treasury. General Musharraf similarly in the eyes of his western supporters was a man of high moral character committed to development of Pakistan. His reality however was that he could not even resist the temptation to accumulate the gifts given to him in his official capacity; he therefore chose not even to report having received them. When people with such petty wishes end up making such critical decisions about the future of the sovereignty of this country and give orders for military operations that result in countless civilian deaths, who can be sure that the motives for those orders were what they were claimed to be.

The writer is a research fellow at the Oxford University. Email: mb294@hotmail .com

New “Al-CIA-da” Crybaby Disinformation About Spies and Fear of Airpower

[This book is the greatest endorsement of CIA covert policies in Pakistan ever written. The words of this alleged "Islamist" have "made in Langley" written all over them.  Oh, look!  America's bombers have "al Qaida" wetting their pants, afraid to go to sleep at night, afraid that everyone is an agent of the master spies who have, until now, failed to get anything right.  Bull S--t!]

New Al Qaeda book on ‘Muslim spies’ released on internet

DUBAI: A new book published by Al Qaeda shows that the terrorist group is under intense pressure and in “deathly fear” of U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Pakistan, terror experts say.

The 150-page book, titled “Guide to the Laws Regarding Muslim Spies,” was recently posted on jihadist Web sites. It was written by a senior Al Qaeda commander, Abu Yahya Al-Libi, and features an introduction by Ayman Al-Zawahri, the No. 2 man in Al Qaeda.

The book accuses some in Al Qaeda’s ranks of being spies who provide intelligence, including information about Al Qaeda camps and safe houses, to U.S. forces. According to the book, these “Muslim spies” have allowed the U.S. to use its Predator drone campaign to paralyze Al Qaeda leadership.

“It would be no exaggeration to say that the first line in the raging Crusader campaign waged by America and its allies against the Muslims and their lands is the network of spies, of various and sundry sorts and kinds,” says the book, translated by the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI

“Their effects are seen: carnage, destruction, arrest, and pursuit, but they themselves remain unseen, just like Satan and his ilk who see us while remaining unseen.”

Terror experts have called the book unique in its weak and worried tone.

“I haven’t ever seen this kind of language from senior Al Qaeda commanders before,” said Daniel Lev, who works for MEMRI. “In general, Al Qaeda speaks in a very triumphant tone,” but in the new book Al-Libi speaks of the group’s dire straits and serious problems, Lev added.

“Such an admission of distress on the part of a senior Al Qaeda commander makes this a very unique book in terms of the author.”

“They are in deathly fear of airpower,” said McInerny, a retired lieutenant general in the U.S. Air Force. “Whether it’s unmanned drones or whether it’s fighters or bombers using precision weapons, they are deathly afraid.”

The books also displays a deep-seated paranoia of hidden enemies, according to MEMRI. It claims that anyone — from the old and infirm to the imam of a mosque — could be a U.S. spy.

“The danger of these spies lies not only in the ability of these hidden ‘brigades’ to infiltrate and reach to the depths,” the book says.

“They include the decrepit, hunchbacked old man who can hardly walk two steps; the strong young man who can cover the length and breadth of the land; the infirm woman sitting in the depths of her house; the young woman whose veins still flow with youth; and even perhaps the prepubescent adolescent who has not reached the age of legal maturity [in Islam].”

Lev, of MEMRI, said that the group’s suspicions could be used as an excuse to conduct a purge, which could further harm the Al Qaeda’s stature in Pakistan.

“In the situation that they’re in, they’re entirely dependent on the natives, on the Pakistanis and the Afghans, and they definitely do not want to be facing a situation like Al Qaeda in Iraq, where you have the tribes turning on you,” he said.

“That can be the beginning.

Eritrea: Statement By the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

[SEE: Israel's second largest base is on Eritrea's Dahlak Islands]

Eritrea: Statement By the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Asmara — The Spokesman of the State Department announced yesterday that the United States will deliver a new consignment of arms to a “government” that is devoid of any legitimacy and whose control does not extend beyond few neighborhoods in Mogadishu.

The Spokesman also alluded, in a passing remark, to his “concerns” on the role of Eritrea in Somalia.

These pronouncements do not contain novel or substantive elements. Nonetheless, the Government of Eritrea is obliged to repeat well-known facts on the situation in Somalia in order to put the record straight.

The crux of the problem underpinning the crisis in Somalia does not, and has never revolved around, the issue of extremism or non-extremis. It squarely revolves around the overarching issue of the existence or non-existence of a sovereign

Somali State. Oversimplification of the problem and its wrong portrayal as a contest between extremist and non-extremist forces is thus neither sincere nor warranted by the facts on the ground.

// <![CDATA[// // <![CDATA[//

To accept a fragmented Somalia as an accomplished fact and to forcibly install, without the consent and choice of the Somali people, “governments” who bear various labels and mantels, in the neighborhoods of “Mogadishu” and “Baidoa” cannot be legal by any standards. These approaches will not also contribute to a solution of the fundamental problem. As it is patently clear, no power in the world is above the rule of law. As such, no one can forcibly install a

government of this nature in contravention of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Furthermore, and as it is sadly attested by events in the past years, this course of action is fraught with destructive consequences.

These are the indelible facts. In the event, the Government of Eritrea has not recognized in the past “governments” imposed through external interferences and that ran counter to the legal and political realities in Somalia. And, it shall not do so in the future. In our view, if the yardstick is legality and accepted legal norms, no other government can indulge in unwarranted recognition of such “governments”.

The Government and people of Eritrea have the right and obligation to extend their moral and political support to the people of Somalia on the basis of these standard legal principles; and, in order to advance the choice of the Somali people, the continued existence of a sovereign Somalia and to put an end the enormous suffering of the Somali people. To distort the stance of the people and Government of Eritrea, and to use it as a pretext for illegal acts, will not only aggravate the crisis in Somalia but it will also be futile and counterproductive.

US misguided acts of intervention and supply of weapons have not, in the past years, advanced the cause of stability in Somalia. A repeat of those measures will not produce positive results but only aggravate and prolong the crisis.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs


26 June 2009

Somalia: U.S. Ships Small Arms, Munitions to Govt

Somalia: U.S. Ships Small Arms, Munitions to Govt

The value of the military aid totals less than U.S. $10 million, the official said, and it comprises weapons for use “in an urban environment, fighting a counter-guerilla insurgency.”

The unnamed official revealed limited details of U.S. military assistance at a briefing of journalists at the U.S. State Department in Washington, DC on Friday. The briefing was arranged after the State Department’s spokesman confirmed on Thursday that the U.S. is providing arms and

ammunition to the Transitional Federal Government (TFG).

The transcript of the briefing published by the department described the briefer only as a “senior State Department official.” Reporters present wrote that the briefing was held under ground rules requiring that the official remain anonymous.

The official told journalists that the military assistance was being provided through Ugandan and Burundian peacekeeping forces.

“We’re essentially doing two things,” he said. “We have provided funds for the purchase of weapons; and we have also asked the two units that are there, particularly the Ugandans, to provide weapons to the TFG, and we have backfilled the Ugandans for what they have provided to the TFG government.”

Pressed on what the aid was worth, the official said “at this point, it’s certainly under $10 million.” It had “substantially increased” since the beginning of the assault on the TFG launched by the al-Shabaab militia early in May.

“The extension of funding directly to the TFG is consistent with our efforts and support to help the TFG as much as possible to gain stability in the region,” the official said.

Somalia: Official Asks For Immediate Intervention

Somalia: Official Asks For Immediate Intervention

June 20, 2009 | 1338 GMT

Somali Parliament Speaker Sheikh Aden Mohamed Madobe has asked his country’s neighbors to send troops to the restive country within 24 hours to assist the Somali government, Reuters reported June 20. Madobe said Somalia is asking for immediate outside intervention because of escalating violence. Madobe said rebels in Somalia are being led by a former Pakistani army general. A leader from the rebel group, al Shaabab, warned Kenya against intervening, saying if Kenya does send troops “we will attack Kenya and destroy the tall buildings of Nairobi.” The violence has led thousands to flee the Somali capital, Agence France-Presse reported. Many fled to Afgooye, an uncontested Islamist-controlled area on Mogadishu’s outskirts.

U.S. Allies on the Ropes in Somalia

Somalia again

U.S. Allies on the Ropes in Somalia

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“The American-supported Somali faction is now in desperate straights.”
Islamist forces in Somalia are demanding the surrender of the U.S.-backed regime that has been squeezed into a small pocket of the capital city, Mogadishu. The ultimatum, made on Sunday, demands the so-called government lay down its arms within five days. The mini-state refused, apparently counting on the arrival of reinforcements Burundi, in Central Africa. Another U.S. ally, Rwanda, guards Mogadishu airport under the job description of African Union peacekeepers.
As the military situation deteriorated for Washington’s side in Somalia, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson – that’s right, Johnnie Carson, like the deceased comedian – was trying, without much evident success, to convince African heads of state to go along with the American military program in the Horn of Africa.
The Americans encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia in late 2006, creating the worst humanitarian crisis on the continent, according to the United Nations. The Ethiopian occupation provoked fierce resistance among the Somalis, forcing the Ethiopians to pull back, but not out of the country. The American-supported Somali faction is now in such desperate straights, it last month literally begged neighboring countries to invade. That shameless abdication of national sovereignty appears to have only led to more desertions from the incredibly shrinking government’s ranks.
“Carson was looking for more troops from a wider range of countries to save America’s allies from absolute defeat in Somalia.”
If Washington learned anything from militarily supporting the Ethiopian invasion, it was that Somalis hate being occupied by foreigners. Last week, at the summit meeting of the African Union, in Libya, the Obama administration’s Johnnie Carson appears to have discovered it was not a good time to put imperial pressure on African heads of state. Carson was looking for more troops from a wider range of countries to save America’s allies from absolute defeat in Somalia. All Carson got was a promise of 800 soldiers from tiny Burundi which, like its neighbor Rwanda, acts as a mercenary for the United States in Africa.
The American’s Somali allies claim Islamist forces are backed by 1,000 foreign jihadis, although most analysts maintain the fighters are overwhelmingly homegrown. But a regime that invites invasion by its neighbors, including the hated Ethiopian military, clearly has no credibility as a defender of the nation.
It would appear that the U.S. is holding a bad hand of cards, in Somalia. But superpowers always have options. One card that still plays well is President Obama, himself, whom the world wants to believe is a man of reason and diplomacy. The Obama administration is loudly declaring it would be “counterproductive” for Ethiopia to move back into Somalia in large numbers – but that Ethiopia has legitimate security concerns. What all this means is, Ethiopia will increase its presence in Somalia, while trying to keep a low profile, while Washington showers the continent with bribes to procure more foreign soldiers to shore up its dwindling friends in their little corner of Mogadishu.
For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at

Obama’s Rollback Strategy: Honduras, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan (and the Boomerang Effect)

Obama’s Rollback Strategy: Honduras, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan (and the Boomerang Effect)

by Prof James Petras

The recent events in Honduras and Iran, which pit democratically elected regimes against pro-US military and civilian actors intent on overthrowing them can best be understood as part of a larger White House strategy designed to rollback the gains achieved by opposition government and movements during the Bush years.

In a manner reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s New Cold War policies, Obama has vastly increased the military budget, increased the number of combat troops, targeted new regions for military intervention and backed military coups in regions traditionally controlled by the US . However Obama’s rollback strategy occurs in a very different international and domestic context. Unlike Reagan, Obama faces a prolonged and profound recession/depression, massive fiscal and trade deficits, a declining role in the world economy and loss of political dominance in Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia and elsewhere. While Reagan faced off against a decaying Soviet Communist regime, Obama confronts surging world-wide opposition from a variety of independent secular, clerical, nationalist, liberal democratic and socialist electoral regimes and social movements anchored in local struggles.

Obama’s rollback strategy is evident from his very first pronouncements, promising to reassert US dominance (‘leadership’) in the Middle East, his projection of massive military power in Afghanistan and military expansion in Pakistan and the destabilization of regimes through deep intervention by proxies as in Iran and Honduras.

Obama’s pursuit of the rollback strategy operates a multi-track policy of overt military intervention, covert ‘civil society’ operations and soft-sell, seemingly benign diplomatic rhetoric, which relies heavily on mass media propaganda. Major ongoing events illustrate the rollback policies in action.

In Afghanistan, Obama has more than doubled the US military forces from 32,000 to 68,000. In the first week of July his military commanders launched the biggest single military offensive in decades in the southern Afghan province of Helmand to displace indigenous resistance and governance.

In Pakistan, the Obama-Clinton-Holbrooke regime successfully put maximum pressure on their newly installed client Zedari regime to launch a massive military offensive and rollback the long-standing influence of Islamic resistance forces in the Northwest frontier regions, while US drones and Special Forces commandoes routinely bomb and assault villages and local Pashtun leaders suspected of supporting the resistance.

In Iraq, the Obama regime engages in a farcical ploy, reconfiguring the urban map of Baghdad to include US military bases and operations and pass off the result as “retiring troops’ to their barracks”. Obama’s multi-billion-dollar investment in long-term, large-scale military infrastructure, including bases, airfields and compounds speaks to a ‘permanent’ imperial presence, not to his campaign promises of a programmed withdrawal. While ‘staging’ fixed election between US-certified client candidates is the norm in Iraq and Afghanistan where the presence of US troops guarantees a colonial victory, in Iran and Honduras, Washington resorts to covert operations to destabilize or overthrow incumbent Presidents who do not support Obama’s rollback policies.

The covert and not-so-invisible operation in Iran found expression in a failed electoral challenge followed by ‘mass street demonstrations’ centered on the claim that the electoral victory of the incumbent anti-imperialist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a result of ‘electoral fraud’. Western mass media played a major role during the electoral campaign exclusively providing favorable coverage of the opposition and negative accounts of the incumbent regime. The mass media blanketed the ‘news’ with pro-demonstrator propaganda, selectively presenting coverage to de-legitimize the elections and elected officials, echoing the charges of ‘fraud’. The propaganda success of the US-orchestrated destabilization campaign even found an echo among broad sections of what passes for the US ‘left’ who ignored the massive, coordinated US financing of key Iranian groups and politicos engaged in the street protests. Neo-conservative, liberal and itinerant leftist ‘free-lance journalists’, like Reese Erlich, defended the destabilization effort from their own particular vantage point as ‘a popular democratic movement against electoral fraud.’

The right/left cheerleaders of US destabilization projects fail to address several key explanatory factors:

1. None, for example, discuss the fact that several weeks before the election a rigorous survey conducted by two US pollsters revealed an electoral outcome very near to the actual voting result, including in the ethnic provinces where the opposition claimed fraud.

2. None of the critics discussed the $400 million dollars allocated by the Bush Administration to finance regime change, domestic destabilization and cross border terror operations. Many of the students and ‘civil society’ NGO’s in the demonstrations received funding from overseas foundations and NGO’s – which in turn were funded by the US government.

3. The charge of electoral fraud was cooked up after the results of the vote count were announced. In the entire run-up to the election, especially when the opposition believed they would win the elections – neither the student protesters nor the Western mass media nor the freelance journalists claimed impending fraud. During the entire day of voting, with opposition party observers at each polling place, no claims of voter intimidation or fraud were noted by the media, international observers or left backers of the opposition. Opposition party observers were present to monitor the entire vote count and yet, with only rare exception, no claims of vote rigging were made at the time. In fact, with the exception of one dubious claim by free-lance journalist Reese Erlich, none of the world’s media claimed ballot box stuffing. And even Erlich’s claims were admittedly based on unsubstantiated ‘anecdotal accounts’ from anonymous sources among his contacts in the opposition.

4. During the first week of protests in Tehran, the US, EU and Israeli leaders did not question the validity of the election outcome. Instead, they condemned the regime’s repression of the protestors. Clearly their well-informed embassies and intelligence operative provided a more accurate and systematic assessment of the Iranian voter preferences than the propaganda spun by the Western mass media and the useful idiots among the Anglo-American left.

The US-backed electoral and street opposition in Iran was designed to push to the limits a destabilization campaign, with the intention of rolling back Iranian influence in the Middle East, undermining Tehran’s opposition to US military intervention in the Gulf, its occupation of Iraq and , above all, Iran’s challenge to Israel’s projection of military power in the region. Anti-Iran propaganda and policy making has been heavily influenced for years on a daily basis by the entire pro-Israel power configuration in the US. This includes the 51 Presidents of the Major America Jewish Organizations with over a million members and several thousand full-time functionaries, scores of editorial writers and commentators dominating the opinion pages of the influential Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times as well as the yellow tabloid press.

Obama’s policy of roll back of Iranian influence counted on a two-step process: Supporting a coalition of clerical dissidents, pro-Western liberals, dissident democrats and right-wing surrogates of the US. Once in office, Washington would push the dissident clerics toward alliances with their strategic allies among pro-Western liberals and rightists, who would then shift policy in accordance with US imperial and Israeli colonial interests by cutting off support for Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Venezuela, the Iraqi resistance and embrace the pro-US Saudi-Iraqi–Jordan-Egypt clients. In other words, Obama’s roll back policy is designed to relocate Iran to the pre-1979 political alignment.

Obama’s roll back of critical elected regimes to impose pliant clients found further expression in the recent military coup in Honduras. The use of the high command in the Honduras military and Washington’s long-standing ties with the local oligarchy, who control the Congress and Supreme Court, facilitated the process and obviated the need for direct US intervention—as was the case in other recent coup efforts. Unlike Haiti where the US marines intervened to oust democratically elected Bertrand Aristide, only a decade ago,and openly backed the failed coup against President Chavez in 2002, and more recently, funded the botched coup against the President-elect Evo Morales in September 2008, the circumstances of US involvement in Honduras were more discrete in order to allow for ‘credible denial’.

The ‘structural presence’ and motives of the US with regard to ousted President Zelaya are readily identifiable. Historically the US has trained and socialized almost the entire Honduran officer corps and maintained deep penetration at all senior levels through daily consultation and common strategic planning. Through its military base in Honduras, the Pentagon’s military intelligence operatives have intimate contacts to pursue policies as well as to keep track of all polical moves by all political actors. Because Honduras is so heavily colonized, it has served as an important base for US military intervention in the region: In 1954 the successful US-backed coup against the democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz was launched from Honduras. In 1961 the US-orchestrated Cuban exile invasion of Cuba was launched from Honduras. From 1981-1989, the US financed and trained over 20,000 ‘Contra’ mercenaries in Honduras which comprised the army of death squads to attack the democratically elected Nicaraguan Sandinista government. During the first seven years of the Chavez government, Honduran regimes were staunchly allied with Washington against the populist Caracas regime.

Obviously no military coups ever occurred or could occur against any US puppet regime in Honduras. The key to the shift in US policy toward Honduras occurred in 2007-2008 when the Liberal President Zelaya decided to improved relations with Venezuela in order to secure generous petro-subsidies and foreign aid from Caracas. Subsequently Zelaya joined ‘Petro-Caribe’, a Venezuelan-organized Caribbean and Central American association to provide long-term, low-cost oil and gas to meet the energy needs of member countries. In more recent days, Zelaya joined ALBA, a regional integration organization sponsored by President Chavez to promote greater trade and investment among its member countries in opposition to the US-promoted regional free trade pact, known as ALCA.

Since Washington defined Venezuela as a threat and alternative to its hegemony in Latin America, Zelaya’s alignment with Chavez on economic issues and his criticism of US intervention turned him into a likely target for US coup planners eager to make Zelaya an example and concerned about their access to Honduran military bases as their traditional launching point for intervention in the region.

Washington wrongly assumed that a coup in a small Central American ‘banana republic’ (indeed the original banana republic) would not provoke any major outcry. They believed that Central American ‘roll-back’ would serve as a warning to other independent-minded regimes in the Caribbean and Central American region of what awaits them if they align with Venezuela.

The mechanics of the coup are well-known and public: The Honduran military seized President Zelaya and ‘exiled’ him to Costa Rica; the oligarchs appointed one of their own in Congress as the interim ‘President’ while their colleagues in the Supreme Court provided bogus legality.

Latin American governments from the left to the right condemned the coup and called for the re-instatement of the legally-elected President. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, not willing to disown their clients, condemned unspecified ‘violence’ and called for ‘negotiations’ between the powerful usurpers and the weakened exile President – a clear recognition of the legitimate role of the Honduran generals as interlocutors.

After the United Nations General Assembly condemned the coup and, along with the Organization of American States, demanded Zelay’s re-instatement, Obama and Secretary Clinton finally condemned the ousting of Zelaya but they refused to call it a ‘coup’, which according to US legislation would have automatically led to a complete suspension of their annual ($80 million) military and economic aid package to Honduras. While Zelaya met with all the Latin American heads of state, President Obama and Secretary Clinton turned him over to a lesser functionary in order not to weaken their allies in Honduran Junta. All the countries in the OAS withdrew their Ambassadors…except the US, whose embassy began to negotiate with the Junta to see how they might salvage the situation in which both were increasingly isolated – especially in the face of Honduras’ expulsion from the OAS.

Whether Zelaya eventually returns to office or whether the US-backed junta continues in office for an extended period of time, while Obama and Clinton sabotage his immediate return through prolonged negotiations, the key issue of the US-promoted ‘roll-back’ has been extremely costly diplomatically as well as politically.

The US backed coup in Honduras demonstrates that unlike the 1980’s when President Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada and President George Bush (Papa) invaded Panama, the situation and political profile of Latin America (and the rest of the world) has changed drastically. Back then the military and pro-US regimes in the region generally approved of US interventions and collaborated; a few protested mildly. Today the center-left and even rightist electoral regimes oppose military coups anywhere as a potential threat to their own futures.

Equally important, given the grave economic crisis and increasing social polarization, the last thing the incumbent regimes want is bloody domestic unrest, stimulated by crude US imperial interventions. Finally, the capitalist classes in Latin America’s center-left countries want stability because they can shift the balance of power via elections (as in the recent cases in Panama, Argentina) and pro-US military regimes can upset their growing trade ties with China, the Middle East and Venezuela/Bolivia.

Obama’s global roll-back strategy includes building offensive missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, not far from the Russian border. Concomitantly Obama is pushing hard to incorporate Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, which will increase US military pressure on Russia’s southern flank. Taking advantage of Russian President Dimitry Medvedev’s ‘malleability’ (in the footsteps of Mikail Gorbechev) Washington has secured free passage of US troops and arms through Russia to the Afghan front, Moscow’s approval for new sanction against Iran, and recognition and support for the US puppet regime in Baghdad. Russian defense officials will likely question Medvedev’s obsequious behavior as Obama moves ahead with his plans to station nuclear missiles 5 minutes from Moscow.

Roll-Back: Predictable Failures and the Boomerang Effect

Obama’s roll-back strategy is counting on a revival of right-wing mass politics to ‘legitimize’ the re-assertion of US dominance. In Argentina throughout 2008, hundreds of thousands of lower and upper-middle class demonstrators took to the streets in the interior of the country under the leadership of pro-US big landowners associations to destabilize the ‘center-left’ Fernandez regime. In Bolivia, hundreds of thousands of middle class students, business-people, landowners and NGO affiliates, centered in Santa Cruz and four other wealthy provinces and heavily funded by US Ambassador Goldberg, Agency for International Development and the National Endowment for Democracy took to the streets, wrecking havoc and murdering over 30 indigenous supporters of President Morales in an effort to oust him from power. Similar rightist mass demonstrations have taken place in Venezuela in the past and more recently in Honduras and Iran.

The notion that mass demonstrations of the well-to-do screaming ‘democracy’ gives legitimacy to US-backed destabilization efforts against its democratically-elected adversaries is an idea promulgated by cynical propagandists in the mass media and parroted by gullible ‘progressive’ free-lance journalists who have never understood the class basis of mass politics.

Obama’s Honduran coup and the US-funded destabilization effort in Iran have much in common. Both take place against electoral processes in which critics of US policies defeated pro-Washington social forces. Having lost the ‘electoral option’ Obama’s roll-back looks to extra-parliamentary ‘mass politics’ to legitimize elite effort to seize power: In Iran by dissident clerics and in Honduras by the generals and oligarchs.

In both Honduras and Iran, Washington’s foreign policy goals were the same: To roll-back regimes whose leaders rejected US tutelage. In Honduras, the coup serves as a ‘lesson’ to intimidate other Central American and Caribbean countries who exit from the US camp and join Venezuelan-led economic integration programs.Obama’s message is clear: such moves will result in US orchestrated sabotage and retaliation.

Through its backing of the military coup, Washington reminds all the countries of Latin America that the US still has the capability to implement its policies through the Latin American military elites, even as its own armed forces are tied down in wars and occupations in Asia and the Middle East and its economic presence is declining. Likewise in the Middle East, Obama’s destabilization of the Iranian regime is meant to intimidate Syria and other critics of US imperial policy and reassure Israel(and the Zionist power configuration in the US ) that Iran remains high on the US roll-back agenda.

Obama’s roll-back policies in many crucial ways follow in the steps of President Ronald Reagan (1981-89). Like Reagan, Obama’s presidency takes place in a time of US retreat, declining power and the advance of anti-imperialist politics. Reagan faced the aftermath of the US defeat in Indo-China, the successful spread of anti-colonial revolutions in Southern Africa (especially Angola and Mozambique), a successful democratic revolt in Afghanistan and a victorious social revolution in Nicaragua and major revolutionary movements in El Salvador and Guatemala. Like Obama today, Reagan set in motion a murderous military strategy of rolling-back these changes in order to undermine, destabilize and destroy the adversaries to US empire.

Obama faces a similar set of adversarial conditions in the current post-Bush period: – Democratic advances throughout Latin America with new regional integration projects excluding the US; defeats and stalemates in the Middle East and South Asia; a revived and strengthened Russia projecting power in the former Soviet republics; declining US influence over NATO military commitments , a loss of political, economic, military and diplomatic credibility as a result of the Wall Street-induced global economic depression and prolonged un-successful regional wars.

Contrary to Obama, Ronald Reagan’s roll-back took place under favorable circumstances. In Afghanistan Reagan secured the support of the entire conservative Muslim world and operated through the key Afghan feudal-tribal leaders against a Soviet-backed, urban-based reformist regime in Kabul. Obama is in the reverse position in Afghanistan. His military occupation is opposed by the vast majority of Afghans and most of the Muslim population in Asia.

Reagan’s roll-back in Central America, especially his Contra-mercenary invasion of Nicaragua, had the backing of Honduras and all the pro-US military dictatorships in Argentina, Chile, Bolivia and Brazil, as well as rightwing civilian government in the region. In contrast, Obama’s roll-back coup in Honduras and beyond face democratic electoral regimes throughout the region, an alliance of left nationalist regimes led by Venezuela and regional economic and diplomatic organizations staunchly opposed to any return to US domination and intervention. Obama’s roll-back strategy finds itself in total political isolation in the entire region.

Obama’s roll-back policies cannot wield the economic ‘Big Stick’ to force regimes in the Middle East and Asia to support his policies. Now there are alternative Asian markets, Chinese foreign investments, the deepening US depression and the disinvestment of overseas US banks and multi-nationals. Unlike Reagan, Obama cannot combine economic carrots with the military stick. Obama has to rely on the less effective and costly military option at a time when the rest of the world has no interest or will in projecting military power in regions of little economic significance or where they can attain market access via economic agreements.

Obama’s launch of the global roll-back strategy has boomeranged, even in its initial stage. In Afghanistan, the big troop build-up and the massive offensive into ‘Taliban’ strongholds has not led to any major military victories or even confrontations. The resistance has retired, blended in with the local population and will likely resort to prolonged decentralized, small-scale war of attrition designed to tie down several thousand troops in a sea of hostile Afghans, bleeding the US economy, increasing casualties, resolving nothing and eventually trying the patience of the US public now deeply immersed in job losses and rapidly declining living standards.

The coup, carried out by the US-backed Honduran military, has already re-affirmed US political and diplomatic isolation in the Hemisphere. The Obama regime is the only major country to retain an Ambassador in Honduras, the only country which refuses to regard the military take-over as a ‘coup’, and the only country to continue economic and military aid. Rather than establish an example of the US’ power to intimidate neighboring countries, the coup has strengthened the belief among all South and Central American countries that Washington is attempting to return to the ‘bad old days’ of pro-US military regimes, economic pillage and monopolized markets.

What Obama’s foreign policy advisers have failed to understand is that they can’t put their ‘Humpty Dumpty’ together again; they cannot return to the days of Reagan’s roll-back, Clinton’s unilateral bombing of Iraq,Yugoslavia ana Somalia and his pillage of Latin America.

No major region, alliance or country will follow the US in its armed colonial occupation in peripheral (Afghanistan/Pakistan) or even central (Iran) countries, even as they join the US in economic sanctions, propaganda wars and electoral destabilization efforts against Iran.

No Latin American country will tolerate another US military putsch against a democratically elected president, even national populist regimes which diverge from US economic and diplomatic policies. The great fear and loathing of the US-backed coup stems from the entire Latin American political class’ memory of the nightmare years of US backed military dictatorships.

Obama’s military offensive, his roll-back strategy to recover imperial power is accelerating the decline of the American Republic. His administration’s isolation is increasingly evidenced by his dependence on Israel-Firsters who occupy his Administration and the Congress as well as influential pro-Israel pundits in the mass media who identify roll-back with Israel’s own seizure of Palestinian land and military threats to Iran.

Roll-back has boomeranged: Instead of regaining the imperial presence, Obama has submerged the republic and, with it, the American people into greater misery and instability.

James Petras most recent books Whats Left in Latin America coauthored with Henry Veltmeyer (Ashgate press 2009) and Global Depression and Regional Wars( Clarity press 2009 –August)

H1N1 and Medical Terrorism, Forced Vaccinations Next Year

Canadian Doctor: H1N1 Vaccination a Eugenics Weapon for Mass Extermination

Kurt Nimmo
Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Canadian doctor Ghislaine Lanctôt, author of the Medical Mafia, has underscored the lawsuit recently filed by Austrian journalist Jane Bürgermeister against the WHO, the UN, and several high ranking government and corporate officials. Bürgermeister has documented how an international corporate criminal syndicate plans to unleash a deadly flu virus and institute a forced vaccination program.

“I am emerging from a long silence on the subject of vaccination, because I feel that, this time, the stakes involved are huge. The consequences may spread much further than anticipated,” writes Lanctôt, who believes the A(H1N1) virus will be used in a pandemic concocted and orchestrated by the WHO, an international organization that serves military, political and industrial interests.

more about “Canadian Doctor: H1N1 Vaccination a E…“, posted with vodpod

Lanctôt warns that the elite and their minions will introduce a compulsory vaccination that will contain a deadly virus and this will be used specifically as a eugenics weapon for “massive and targeted reduction of the world population.” Moreover, a pandemic will also be used to further establish martial law and a police state, according to Lanctôt, and activate concentration camps “built to accommodate the rebellious” and eventually transfer power from all nations to a single United Nations government and thus fulfill the sinister plans of the New World Order.

In her book The Medical Mafia, Lanctôt writes about the ineffectiveness and dangers of vaccination. “Because of my professional status, my words weighed significantly in the public eye. The Medical Board’s reaction was immediate and strong. Its leaders demanded that I resign as a physician. I answered that I would do so as long as they could prove that what I had written was false. The Medical Board replied with a call for my expulsion,” she writes. “As I witnessed the disproportionate reaction of the Medical Board, I realized that, for the health establishment, the subject of vaccination was taboo. Unknowingly, I had opened a Pandora’s box. I discovered that, despite official claims, vaccines have nothing to do with public health. Underneath the governmental stamp of approval, there are deep military, political and industrial interests.”

During her trial in 1995, Lanctôt used an episode from the March 11th, 1979, 60 Minutes TV show covering the massive vaccination program foisted on the American public supposedly in response to the 1976 swine flu outbreak. It was later established by the CDC that the virus originated out of Fort Dix in New Jersey. “The Fort Dix outbreak may have been a zoonotic anomaly caused by introduction of an animal virus into a stressed population in close contact in crowded facilities during a cold winter,” note Joel C. Gaydos, Franklin H. Top, Jr, Richard A. Hodder, and Philip K. Russell.

It was also characterized “a rare example of an influenza virus with documented human to human transmission,” according to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. The virus is “thought to be a direct descendant of the virus that caused the pandemic of 1918,” explained Richard Krause, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the time.

“Public health experts, fearing a possible replay of the 1918 pandemic, engaged in an intense debate about how to respond. Eventually they launched a nationwide vaccination campaign, which was announced by President Gerald Ford in March. By the end of the year, 48 million people had been vaccinated,” write Robert Roos and Lisa Schnirring of the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy. “But the feared pandemic never materialized.”

Instead, numerous people came down with Guillian-Barre syndrome, a paralyzing neurologic illness, after receiving the government-hyped vaccination.

More than 33 years later, according to Dr. Russell Blaylock, a board certified neurosurgeon, “we are hearing the same cries of alarm from a similar lineup of virology experts. The pharmaceutical companies are busy designing a vaccine for the swine flu in hope that this administration will make the vaccine mandatory before another vaccine-related disaster can ruin their party…. Like SARS and bird flu before it, this swine flu scare is a lot of nonsense. Just take your high dose vitamin D3 (5000 IU a day), eat a healthy diet and take a few immune boosting supplements (such as beta-1, 3/1, 6 glucan) and you will not have to worry about this flu.”

According to a source known to former NSA official Wayne Madsen, “A top scientist for the United Nations, who has examined the outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa, as well as HIV/AIDS victims, concluded that H1N1 possesses certain transmission “vectors” that suggest that the new flu strain has been genetically-manufactured as a military biological warfare weapon.

In April, Army criminal investigators were looking into the possibility that disease samples went missing from biolabs at Fort Detrick. “Chad Jones, spokesman for Fort Meade, said CID is investigating the possibility of missing virus samples from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases,” the Frederick News Post reported. “Obviously, in light of the current swine flu scare, and the new strain’s possible synthetic origin, the fact that virus samples may have gone missing from the same Army research lab from which the 2001 anthrax strain was released is extremely disturbing,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote at the time.

Jane Bürgermeister “charges that the entire ’swine flu’ pandemic business is premised on a massive lie that there is no natural virus out there that poses a threat to the population,” writes Barbara Minton for Natural Health News. “She presents evidence leading to the belief that the bird flu and swine flu viruses have, in fact, been bioengineered in laboratories using funding supplied by the WHO and other government agencies, among others. This ’swine flu’ is a hybrid of part swine flu, part human flu and part bird flu, something that can only come from laboratories according to many experts.”

Minton continues:

Using the “swine flu” as a pretext, the defendants [in Bürgermeister's lawsuit] have preplanned the mass murder of the U.S. population by means of forced vaccination. They have installed an extensive network of FEMA concentration camps and identified mass grave sites, and they have been involved in devising and implementing a scheme to hand power over the U.S. to an international crime syndicate that uses the UN and WHO as a front for illegal racketeering influenced organized crime activities, in violation of the laws that govern treason.

Obama’s Bilderberg Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius — and Bilderberg member — wants to make it easy for kids to get their toxin-laden eugenicist “swine flu” vaccine this fall. “Schoolchildren may be first in line for swine flu vaccine this fall — and might even be able to get the shot right at school,” the Associated Press reported on June 16.

As we noted last month, the government appears to be planning a mandatory flu vaccination program. In a recent article on the unfolding economic collapse, Rep. Ron Paul warns that the hysterically hyped H1N1 flu “pandemic” may result in the government requiring mandatory flu vaccinations. “Nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a ‘potential pandemic flu’ which could result in mandatory vaccinations for no discernible reason other than to enrich the pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccine,” writes Paul.

Considering the track record of the global elite, the government-mandated vaccination program now in the works — as Ghislaine Lanctôt and Jane Bürgermeister warn — will serve the eugenicist plan to depopulate the planet. A contrived pandemic will also set the final stage for the implementation of martial law and a high-tech surveillance and police state grid.

Time Magazine Morphs Into National Enquirer

[The "legitimate" mainstream media cannot be bothered with real investigative journalism in this age of government/corporate control (like the 911 controlled demolitions, or US covert wars and war crimes), but it has ample space for crap like this.  Anyone familiar with Mr. Stein's work (he has a weekly column in Time) knows that this kind of drivel and other columns dedicated to self-worship are par for the course for him.  The entire magazine is a Zionist enterprise.]

Afterbirth: It’s What’s For Dinner

By Joel Stein

The Rise of the Obamacons, Another Neocon President

The rise of the Obamacons

Oct 23rd 2008
From The Economist print edition

A striking number of conservatives are planning to vote for Obama

Illustration by KAL

IN “W.”, his biopic about his Yale classmate, Oliver Stone details Colin Powell’s agonies during George Bush’s first term. Throughout the film Mr Powell repeatedly raises doubts about the invasion of Iraq—and is repeatedly overruled by the ghoulish trio of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove. In one of the final scenes, with his direst warnings proving correct, Mr Powell turns to Mr Cheney and delivers a heartfelt “Fuck you”.

The real Colin Powell used more diplomatic language in endorsing Barack Obama on October 19th, but the impact was much the same. Mr Obama is a “transformational figure”, he mildly said, and his old friend John McCain had erred in choosing a neophyte as a running-mate. But you would have to be naive not to see the endorsement as a verdict on the Bush years.

Mr Powell is now a four-star general in America’s most surprising new army: the Obamacons. The army includes other big names such as Susan Eisenhower, Dwight’s granddaughter, who introduced Mr Obama at the Democratic National Convention and Christopher Buckley, the son of the conservative icon William Buckley, who complains that he has not left the Republican Party: the Republican Party has left him. Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska and one-time bosom buddy of Mr McCain has also flirted heavily with the movement, though he has refrained from issuing an official endorsement.

The biggest brigade in the Obamacon army consists of libertarians, furious with Mr Bush’s big-government conservatism, worried about his commitment to an open-ended “war on terror”, and disgusted by his cavalier way with civil rights. There are two competing “libertarians for Obama” web sites. CaféPress is even offering a “libertarian for Obama” lawn sign for $19.95. Larry Hunter, who helped to devise Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1994, thinks that Mr Obama can free America from the grip of the “zombies” who now run the Republican Party.

But the army has many other brigades, too: repentant neocons such as Francis Fukuyama, legal scholars such as Douglas Kmiec, and conservative talk-show hosts such as Michael Smerconish. And it is picking up unexpected new recruits as the campaign approaches its denouement. Many disillusioned Republicans hoped that Mr McCain would provide a compass for a party that has lost its way, but now feel that the compass has gone haywire. Kenneth Adelman, who once described the invasion of Iraq as a “cakewalk”, decided this week to vote for Mr Obama mainly because he regards Sarah Palin as “not close to being acceptable in high office”.

The rise of the Obamacons is more than a reaction against Mr Bush’s remodelling of the Republican Party and Mr McCain’s desperation: there were plenty of disillusioned Republicans in 2004 who did not warm to John Kerry. It is also a positive verdict on Mr Obama. For many conservatives, Mr Obama embodies qualities that their party has abandoned: pragmatism, competence and respect for the head rather than the heart. Mr Obama’s calm and collected response to the turmoil on Wall Street contrasted sharply with Mr McCain’s grandstanding.

Much of Mr Obama’s rhetoric is strikingly conservative, even Reaganesque. He preaches the virtues of personal responsibility and family values, and practises them too. He talks in uplifting terms about the promise of American life. His story also appeals to conservatives: it holds the possibility of freeing America from its racial demons, proving that the country is a race-blind meritocracy and, in the process, bankrupting a race-grievance industry that has produced the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

How much do these Obamacons matter? More than Mr McCain would like to think. The Obamacons are manifestations of a deeper turmoil in the Republican rank-and-file, as the old coalition of small-government activists, social conservatives and business Republicans falls apart. They also influence opinion. This is obvious in the case of Mr Powell: Mr Obama is making liberal use of his endorsement to refute the latest Republican criticism that he is a “socialist”. But it is also true of lesser-known scribblers. At least 27 newspapers that backed Mr Bush in 2004 have endorsed Mr Obama.

Moreover, the revolt of the intellectuals is coinciding with a migration of culturally conservative voters—particularly white working-class voters—into Obamaland. Mr Obama is now level-pegging or leading among swing-groups such as Catholics and working-class whites. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll shows him winning 22% of self-described conservatives, a higher proportion than any Democratic nominee since 1980.

Don’t blame the rats

The more tantalising question is whether the rise of the Obamacons signals a lasting political realignment. In 1980 the rise of the neocons—liberal intellectuals who abandoned a spineless Democratic Party—was reinforced by the birth of working class “Reagan Democrats”. Is the Reagan revolution now going into reverse? There are reasons for scepticism. Will libertarians really stick with “Senator Government”, as Mr McCain labelled Mr Obama in the best slip of the tongue of the campaign? Will economic conservatives cleave to a president who believes in “spreading the wealth around”?

Much depends on how Mr Obama governs if he wins, and how the Republicans behave if they lose. Mr Obama talks about creating an administration of all the talents. He promises to take the cultural anxieties of Reagan Democrats seriously. For their part, hard-core Republicans are handling their party’s travails abysmally, retreating into elite-bashing populism and denouncing the Obamacons as “rats” who are deserting a sinking ship. If the Republican Party continues to think that the problem lies with the rats, rather than the seaworthiness of the ship, then the Obamacons are here to stay.

British Empire’s Warfare Raging Though South and Central Asia

[The Pakistani military operations are flushing the militants out of the North West Frontier, sending them back to their homes in Central Asia, explaining the recent wave of "Islamic" terrorist attacks there.  Or does it?  Does the consistent confluence of American and Islamist goals and actions throughout the world mean that the militants are patsies or assets?  Do they take orders from Washington's secret representatives, or can Langley just lead them around by their noses?  Is this a Manchurian Candidate scenario, or has the CIA so mastered their mind control and psychological conditioning techniques where they can confidently control these agitated skilled terrorist veterans as they carry-out America's secret foreign policies?]

British Empire’s Warfare Raging Though South and Central Asia

From (LPAC)

The British Empire is waging hot warfare throughout South and Central Asia, from Xinjiang in western China, through Afghanistan-Pakistan, to the North Caucasus region of Russia, as the Obama Administration’s insane surge policy gets underway. Today alone, seven U.S. troops died in Afghanistan, four of them in a roadside bombing in the allegedly less violent northern region.

The latest outbreak, the violent riots which last night killed at least 156 people and wounded over 1,000 in Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang autonomous region in far western China, is part of this war. Thousands of hard-core militants who were operating in Pakistan’s border regions, have been forced out of their bases by the attacks by the Pakistani Army, and have moved back into Central Asia. There are some 10,000 of these hard-core militants, and the various groups, supported by Saudi funds and recruitment operations, are expanding, according to regional intelligence sources. Few of the governments have any capability to deal with these militants, who are supported by the opium-trafficking operations which run through the Fergana Valley, and other routes. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, in particular, are extremely poor, and borders are almost impossible to control in this huge mountainous region.

About 1,000 of these militants ousted from Pakistan are ethnic Uygurs, who are fighting against China for an independent East Turkestan. The Chinese authorities are holding the exiled separatist World Uyghur Congress responsible for inciting the riots, and for attempts to spread violence to Kashgar and other cities today, but these are under tight control at this time. Chinese authorities also recently warned about the unprecedented increase in opium trafficking from Afghanistan.

** On June 8, Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiev warned of the effects of the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan on the region. He stated the seriousness of the situation there, and then said: “If the conflict against the Taliban further deepens in Afghanistan, then where will they escape? God save us, but they could move towards Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan,” the Asia Times reported.

Kyrgyzstan has been attempting to increase security on its borders¸and reported a battle with Taliban fighters on June 23. Uzbekistan, which has been warning about increased attacks from the banned Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, is now digging trenches on its border with Kyrgyzstan.

NATO head Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said on June 25 that the fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan may be sending militants into Central Asia, in an interview from the NATO security conference in Astana, Kazakhstan. “If extremists want to cross borders into Central Asia to continue their horrific work there, NATO cannot possibly stop that,” the Daily Times reported.

** Fighting is also increasing in Russia’s North Caucasus region. On July 4 in Ingushetia, militants ambushed and killed 9 Chechen policemen helping the Ingush police force. On June 22, a suicide bomber had badly wounded President Yunus-Bek Yevkurov and killed several others. Earlier in June, a Supreme Court judge and a former Deputy Prime Minister of Ingushetia, and the Interior Minister of Dagestan, Adilgirei Magomedtagirov, were all assassinated. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that Moscow’s response to the attacks will be “direct and brutal,” and has called on Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov to lead the fight against the terror insurgency in the region, which has taken the lives of a number of Russian soldiers and others recently. The situation in neighboring Georgia remains volatile.

** Meanwhile, all the lies about “victory” in Iraq are being exposed by the ever-mounting death toll there, as U.S. forces pulled out of urban areas in late June. Some 447 people were killed in bombings in Iraq last month, after 63 were killed in May, 216 in April, with many scores more wounded every month.


The Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC). P.O. Box 6157, Leesburg, VA 20178, and Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate’s Committee

Washington Times Warns of Taliban/”al-CIA-da”/Jundallah Union (DISINFORMATION)

[Half of all alleged "al Qaida" attacks were the work of Jundallah's Khalid Sheikh Mohammed anyway.  America's misleaders have always been clear about their desire to go into Balochistan, no doubt as a first step towards Iran's backdoor.  Isn't it convenient for us that the Empire usually telegraphs its next moves through some "expert" in the lapdog press?  Like the so-called "Taliban split" that gave us the fake "Taliban," the captive press plants the suggestion that this might happen, so that when American forces (including the mercenary Pakistani Army) make their move the American and Pakistani people will have been conditioned to the idea.]

Taliban eye new allies

Daily Times Monitor

ISLAMABAD: In the wake of renewed attacks by the Pakistan military and the United States, the Taliban and Al Qaeda might join Jundallah, a group that has staged attacks on Iran and strained Iranian-Pakistani relations, military specialists told Washington Times on Thursday.

Ashraf Ali, a Peshawar-based specialist on the Taliban,
told the paper that given Jundallah’s historical connections with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, led by Baitullah Mehsud, might seek refuge in Balochistan or join the ranks of Jundallah.

“This would give a totally new dimension to the dynamics of Taliban/Al Qaeda militancy in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region and may shift some of the problem to the Pakistan-Iran border region,” Ali told the paper. “This is very much possible, as apparently there seems to be no [Pakistani] troops deployment on the south of the conflict zone towards Balochistan.” [SEE: Pakistan moves troops to Afghan border]

Last week, a suicide bomber detonated his explosives at a hotel in Balochistan’s Kalat district, killing four people and injuring 11. The attack appeared aimed at disrupting supplies to NATO forces in Afghanistan, since drivers of NATO supply vehicles were eating at the hotel.

Analysts said the incident was a sign of rising Taliban/Al Qaeda activities in Balochistan, as well as a possible indication of growing contacts between Waziristan-based militant groups and Jundallah.

Malik Siraj Akbar, a journalist in Quetta, told The Washington Times that Abdul Malik Rigi, the leader of Jundullah, studied at madrassas in Karachi, where Taliban leaders also got their schooling.

The possibility of a new alliance among the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Jundallah could provide common ground among the United States, Pakistan and Iran against the terror threat.

Blackwater/Xe: How did it happen that the U.S. came to rely on mercenaries?

By The Rev. Gordon C. Stewart | Friday, July 3, 2009

A cagey professor used to provoke his students’ curiosity by asking, “Does anything bother you about that?”

Since the private “security” contractor Blackwater (re-branded last February as “Xe”) hit the news last fall for allegedly killing unarmed civilians in Iraq, the professor’s question has led me to a more important question for a constitutional republic: When, why, and how did the United States of America become the land of mercenaries?

My grade-school teachers taught us to be proud that the land of the free and the home of the brave was not the home of mercenaries, professional soldiers who rent themselves out for any cause for the right price. Our national security rested in a standing Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and Coast Guard under civilian oversight, accountable to the people through an elected government.


What happened that allowed a proud democratic republic to turn its back on this foundational principle? How did it happen that a private for-profit corporation called Blackwater could establish its own little kingdom on 7,000 acres of private land in a remote area of North Carolina where it builds its own superior armored vehicles and helicopters and trains its own soldiers for combat? How did it happen that Blackwater “soldiers” make $20,000 per month, while the U.S. soldier, sent to the very same war, is paid a small fraction of that amount and goes into combat with inferior body armor and second-class Humvees?

An unaccountable shadow army
In a democratic republic “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” the question of a shadow army seems obvious. Xe’s original name, Blackwater, suggests an operation that is out of sight. When, why, and how did for-profit “security corporations” (i.e., mercenaries) like Xe augment or supplant the traditional role of the U.S. military, operating “The U.S. Training Center” on private property for private purposes, unaccountable to the president as commander in chief or the civilian oversight of Congress? When and how, for instance, did it happen that Xe’s high-paid security forces, instead of the U.S. Marine Corps, became protectors of American diplomats in Iraq and around the world?

We have a private army on our own soil. Its personnel are built around U.S. military Special Forces personnel who have joined Xe. They are snipers, demolition experts and former intelligence officers, both Army and CIA. Xe has its own intelligence department that hires out to corporations and the CIA, for profit. Does anything bother us about that?

Such forces, unaccountable to the people, could, if they so chose, operate in black water for purposes that are anything but democratic. The current heated rhetoric of the far right is pouring toxins of fear and hate into the political water table, the poisons of a new McCarthyism with innuendos and bumper stickers that paint a popularly elected president as the nation’s internal public enemy. Our nation’s history of assassinations and assassination attempts requires that we pay attention to what’s happening under our noses right now. A company willing to hire on as trained killers and intelligence experts under the flag of democracy and freedom is also presumably capable of hiring on for insidious purposes. When Rush Limbaugh states that the nation’s security is at stake in the Oval Office, we should pay attention to the question of the professor. When, why, and how did it happen, and why does it continue?

Ordinary people off the hook
As a result of public opposition to the War in Vietnam, the Nixon administration established an all-volunteer army, ending the draft that had been based on the shared belief that every American citizen had a duty and responsibility to protect our national security interests. From that point on, military interventions across the world no longer affected us personally. Draft-age young men no longer had to fear that they would be sent to a war in which they did not believe. Parents no longer feared they might lose their children. The volunteer military took ordinary people off the hook, cut the nation’s moral nerve, and turned the public’s eyes away from interventionist foreign policy and foreign adventures.

In short, our national security was privatized. Like the U.S. economy, much of it was outsourced to the likes of Xe — private armies that operate in black water removed from public accountability and living on the public dole and granted immunity from prosecution — to compensate for the inadequate numbers of our “volunteer army” and do an end run around the public outcry about the war in Iraq.

This is not a partisan issue. So far as I could tell, my grade-school teachers were mostly, if not all, Republican. They voted for Eisenhower. In his Farewell Speech in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, esteemed hero of World War II and two-term president and commander in chief, warned the nation of the runaway growth of a “military-industrial-complex” that has a life all its own, in love with the illusion of power, sowing the seeds that produce hatred around the world and that threaten the very idea of a constitutional republic here at home. We are living in the fulfillment of that warning. His Farewell Speech reads, in part:

“[W]e must not fail to comprehend [the new military-industrial complex's] grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

It bothered Eisenhower. Does it bother you? If not, why not? If it does, what do we, as ordinary citizens, do to press the question and stop it?

The Rev. Gordon C. Stewart is pastor of Shepherd of the Hill Presbyterian Church in Chaska. He is the moderator of Shepherd of the Hill Dialogues, and former executive director of the Legal Rights Center.